tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 7, 2018 1:00am-1:56am PDT
administrative code. the calendar item doesn't say declaring them surplus. i'm not suron iha hadescribedr i was also assured that any disposal of such cars would be consistent with a vinta c policy that would be preve pres to the andca i understand has not been. theenda item does reference something related toicle policy, i have not seen that document and so i'm making a request right here right now for that document that was referenced in the staff report. again, i note that this is an seqa issue and i would likely appeal this to the board of supervisors. i havtionen that the cac
disagrs with the staff and, again, i would say unless there's some urgency ar thi i would suggest putting this off and resolving theissues. this is another one wre council and miss jones may need my comments.obly hea >> chairman brinkman: thank you. i think that we'll take your recommendation and delay this one, put it off to -- no, we'll wait to hear -- >> madame chair, maybe move on the regular calendar and allow staff to discuss and come back. >> chairman brinkman: we'll move on to the regular calendar and have staff thence t discuss this. >> item 11, committing to start procuring zero owe mission battery buses. >> chairman brinkman: excellent. i see mr. haley approaching. mhaley, welcome. >> good afternoon. mad dam -- madame chair, board
members. i'm here to is you to adopt a resolution that memorializes your leadership in a very important topic and is the topic of zero emissions. i would remind theoard t under your vision and leadership we currently operate the electric fleet, just u 300 hicles in north america. over the last five years we have retired and replaced some 600 diesel buses with hybrid buses that resulted this some 5.4 million gallons oflue sng o will result over the life of the vehicles. so these are good steps as we
move down that. currently the expectations are far greater and you have urged us to go further and fter if that's possible in moving towards zero emissions. so i'm pleased to say that what we have em bodied in the resolutions is a series of steps that will bemmedately which will try accish a this al. athe s time i would recommend that in north america there's 5,000 transit buses priced on an annual basis. there's currently50 4 electric buses in revenu service. what we are doing hopefully with these actions is helping to de the marketplace so that we are takinmer eng markets and moving it further down the road. so thetiate that i would
like to call out t areha in your resolution is are number one last week i had the opportunity to see the first bus coming off the proion inh hasnande b pack. this is is most significant it will be in san francisco within the next 30 days.ign icant because this s to initiate in the fall something called green zones, which winrunning portions entirely on thebattery. will be quiet, zero emissions and we will get a good bench line and mark to push the technology as it emerges. the second initiative, i would point out also that we are the first transit system and north america to do this, con semiplai
semiplaits -- conteng ti converting to as many as 256e e. youay recall during the purchase we had go types of engine series in paralle 256 of those -- if in fact the lot works out they can have their engine placed or the power traine accurately replaced with a battery pack. thatuld be the second initiative. the third one is the i the beginning o 019 we haven, we have looked at the -- worked with our colleagues in other stems and some the man chasurersbe i bridng for turchase some nin electric buses that we will get from different manufacturers l put into service and begin therocesso
electric.transform the fleet to if you adopt this resolution today we ask your support on thislutssi that bhe yea2025 we will only buy electric buses going forward. by 2035 our entire fleet will be electric and i would point out that that puts us five years ahead of the clean air resources board goal of having everything belc in 2040. also havease alked about, i ask your support to this resolution, because while it's an aressush p ine thhnology and innovations that we're trying, it also allwsosnueti to provide the bus service required by some 600,000 trips a day. while wea sometimes more about the rail side of it the buses are one of
our services. so tis we think a policy that balances the need to drive us rward and be in the leadhip re with zero missions but at the same time provide a the exis service. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you mr. haley. i do have -- i know that we have public comment on this but i want to ask a clarifying question too. we have theurcha of 40 buses schedulor 202 this date2025 is justeyond that 40 foot bus schedule. what will the scenario be for these 40 foot buses that we are likely to purchase in 2023? >> the 40 foot b y -- this is the last in the series of the contract. so the -- last in the series of the contract. the so the buses coming off the manufacturing line the
an brinkman: it's my understanding that we will probabechaurng more 40 footuses b in , is at -- >> let me point out what we have done is also we have a solicitation that we -- for 30 foot buses that will p 30 foot buses o the cmunity service line. that was done as a technology neutral sligsation. we have received -- solicitation. bis.ave received two i think in answer to you question, by 2023, for example, if the pilots that we talked about that will allow us to accelerate the timetable. what we are dependent on is an up consolidate of a couple of things, onethe ergence of battery technology and then the
second thing is an on going series of adjustments ourto infructure a to prepare ourselves for all elec be fa you know, as you hea ourpls, are for the most part with a few excio very cold. it would be an enormous capital undertaking that we've started tations into our existing g facilities. that process i mentioned in 2019 that wela to buy pilot b uses and we have already identda charging methodology, a location inthat pssfacil moving so by 23 clearly we hope to be in a position wh less successful.f these are we will continue to movown e line relying on batteries rather than engines.
nkmah just one question, before i ask my directors theyave any uestqns, do we have anyiesel vehicleservi if s or is everything we have now a diesel hybrid? >> i'm sorry? >> chairman brinkman: do we have any diesel buses in service that are just diesel, not diese hybrid? >> yeah. we have -- at the point w wil have them a the wil all be gone by the end of 2018. >> crman bnkman: by t en f2018. okay. >> there are between 60 and 70 left in the fleet. that is we have for a number of reasons not relatedo t own the tireme, things likew twin peaks construction and some other activities that have up. so all o diesel should be gone b >> chairman brinkman: okay. >> we down to sl numbers
on ale 800. rs chairmanink any questions? those of you on the bo an orer tere ou should really understand it. director torres? >> board member torres: i want to thank you because -- tur on your microhone. >> board member torres: i shut it off because roberta told me to. i want to say thank you for the work that you've done on this issue. as you now, i'm a strong propont of electric transportation in this state. we are ahead of our time here in san francisco. in large due to leadership of our director. this proceeded me on this board in issuing this kind direction and vision. you in doing so as well. i als wan to thank you for the letter you sent on may 14th because of the people concerned tantt aprogm. that was laly, the sooner you remove those diesel buses from
operation the less time i'll have to spend at home from all the debris from the diesel buses off of route 37. >> crman bnkman: thank you, director torres. an oer questions before public comment? thank you very much. first three speakers.o >> chairman brinkman: thank you. >> good rnoon. my name is paul court, i'm an attorney with earth justice and a san francisco resident. i'm here today to support the proposed resolution to move muni to allectr b 2035. i'm verouds a resident of the rd cwemission to -- as a resident to move away from con come -- combustion buses. first on timing. buses have a
useful life of 12 to 14 years. this means if we want to g all of the diesel incluhe t hybrid buses off the year in 2045 we need to end them in the fram/ tway, this is very doable. this is being done at other transit agencies up and down the so resolution we would ask be amended to dirt st to begin purchasing zero emission buses well before 2025. the nine bust i an important ft step and needs to happen right away. muni should leveraging the 30 foot bus procurement and begin ramping up electric bus procurement so by 2023 it will all be zero emission. second equity. the resolution should direct staff to fold equity into the
decision-making and planning. for example, should encourage staff to priorit impacted communities as it rolls out this innovative green zone concept. similarly, staff introduce zero emissions buses and upgrade facility staff should prioritize efforts that benefits communities. finally jobs. transitioning to an all electric feet in require commitment and provide great opportunity to provide a pathway to good >> chairman brinkman: thank you. >> the board should direct staff to commit to a plan -- n brcyokman: obte. orry hat yourimes up. >> thank you. >> emily rush, . >> i'm emily rush, the execut direc of the california gloup esolnted to come here to today ion i do want to align myself too
with the comments that paul just ade out timeline concerns an the idea that we theneed electric buses before . nearly 60% of the nation's 70,000 transit b still opeate on diesel today. i think soportaha ead he way on this issue by purchasing electric buses now. there is significant public health for the riders oh of the -- riders the o buses. it's heavy duty vehicles that need to transition to electric as well. i want to applaud the board. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. next speake please.
>> thank you very much. members of the board,director, my name is nick jefowitz. i represent the san francisco mayor on mtc and i've been working hard at the regional tra sition our region's bus fleet to e leng trick. -- electric. there's good news, recreently allocated $10 million to match the district $10 million grant to provide trt operators in the bay area transitions tolect ec buses and the grants fm thestat help transit agencies in california buy or renovate 156 buses to move them to e leng trick. -- electric. this is in line with a lot of transit agencies inhe unite states and around the world. l.a. metro has committed to go 100% electric by 203 a whole bunch of cities, london,
paris, copenhagen, et cetera, have committed only for vision emotion buses starting in 20. there are 59,000 buses. fleet to electric ransitioned b buses and they estimate that by 2025 thereill be 1.2 million electric buses in chin so the goodews is it's totally achievable to meet theoal g eadership on that.your -- forur i think the other good news is it's also totally possible to only start -- to only procure buses starting in 2023 so tt tarehere o new procurements that would come out of this agency to procure anything but electric bu it's incredibly important and my time is up.
thank very much.you >> david bill -- dapi followed by eddie. ieresting presentation by john haley. i think i'm neither in support nor in opposition. i wouldelyik sort this but i was not clear from the staff report what is implicated here, he hhe were existing motoraches, trolly eac combination. i couldn't tell the term electric high drid -- hybrid n understand how there was supposedly no seqa issue, hois iw th not a project. iteems s to me like this policy change would have positive somewhat dramatic facility fleet
feel guideway. definitely neighboodcy and staffing impact on the a the city and to suggest that didn't constitute a opresint oba project if you're making a polic choic to procure only a certain type ofehicl going forward and that that doesn't have impact surprises me. so, again, wasn't clear what vehicle types this icatpl, how this relates to the fleet capital improvent plan and the itget. i think that this needs a little explaation along the loh of what earlier and i learned things from the prior speakers as well. just finally, if you do adopt of the resolution,tion line at refers to may 15th, 17. that's typo. it should be 2018. i don't understand why these calendar items prepared by staff and many sets of eyes including
the attorney and the secretary still have typos. thank you. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> eddie. >> good afternoon, ssion. eddie albright, non-defense, l policy nonprofit. impacted portionally by the resolution. in support of this resolution and like the comments made by paul and emily and victor. i want to commend dctor kin f his leadership on this issue and push for more time to make sure procurement of the buses are fully electric by the time the districts that
cross highways that are impacted by particular matter and not addressed often enough. maybe one tool to look at the communities of concern ordina i forward to continuing this in the future. >> chairman brinkman: anymore public comments? yes, mr. gilberte. >> thank you. ectric -- changes. >> chairman brinkman: give your n f th record. >> tom gilberte. how about the daytime energy packs to rejuvenate the bus cells in the bus? panels on of r the garage of the warehouses, wherever we can get some.
it's on the battery size, the battery itself, it's easy transfer of the batteries in and out. a universal standard, what ery i going to hold up the longest and after five years do we have to replace these batteries with other batteries. that is going to be major question when you go forward on this it's going to be quiet electric buses oh -- on the outside but please relatively quickly find out if these buses rattle on the inside. that is still unacceptable, you know, to let buses rattle on the inside. thank you. good luck. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. do i have any other pun comment? -- public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. director reiskin, the green zones that mr. haley mentioned, do we have a program about where
those would be? i do think that the call for equity on those is a really good one because there are certain neighborhoods that are much more impacted by the buses that are s absturntugh. with these if we didn't include in the staff report or resolution but that's our omission but that's absolutely the intent. i think we can make a very dirt connection to those areas that are icty b air quality, such as baby owners point and the mission. we do have zero emission vehicles serving some tse areas. we are looking at deployment of the green zones, the clean zones, clean green zones in those neighborhoods so absolutely. >> chairman brinkman: do you think that we need to move this resolution forward right now? we are saying by 2025 we will be
buying only electric and that will put us all electric2035 and the questions we seem to be getting is if we are buying buses will we be buying buses in 2022 or 2023 that are still diesel hybrid and those would possibly -- those would still be in use by 2035 date? that seems to be the concern. >> understood. just to reiterate, we are alr dy aleade more than half of our fleet is already zero emission vehicles and that's far beyond what any other transit agency in the count is doing. as director haley said, the remaining with the exception of those old diesels that will be gone by the end of the year are electric hybrid vehi and the electric hybrid with renewable
diesel which has the switch from diesel to renewable d diesel has reduced the gas emissions by 30%. we are already the leader. e don't want folks to .ha we did -- commissioner moved to the trcp state grants, the captain grants. we were among those who sought the grants for e lek bus -- electric buses. a lot fewer riders were the recipients of those. there was a project mark. there's funds for these buses. with the regard to the year, the 2023 versus the 2025 what we put in here was first of all consistent with the city's commitment that was made
reference in public comment. it's -- that is based in part on our best understanding of where the technol itodaynd the path that we are on. as director haley mentioned, the buses that he -- many of the ones that we have recently bought as well as any that we do buy going forward would be convertible to all electric. so if the state is such that by 2023 we cannot make an all electric procurement because the technology is not adequate at that time evenn thatase the buses that we purchased at that time would be convertible to all electric as are more than 200 buses that we have today. we are very hopeful as our -- the speakers that will be in a posi that we canust technology neutral procurement in 2023 but an all electric procurement. we believe the resolution as it stands is the appropriate
target. we would rather i guess underpromise and over deliver and in the future we can bring that back then that's great. the end date the 2035 date is really the critical one which as director haley said putsa uad o board target. >> chairman brinkman: yes. in what wedoing.ncerns is beinn obviously what we do want to make sure is we have enough buses to meet the needs of the riders and that thing. so i don't have a problem with a proposed timeline as i understand it. as i also understand this plan, this is not a situation where we are going to in any way sacrifice capacity. i mean, because of coursevens - obviously the most important thing is getting people back on the buses and not in their cars. this is not coming ing with an
effect on our capacity. is that correct? >> that's absolutely right. the point you made i think it gets lost as we get in the weeds of what year we should consider the much, much bigger story is that the way that we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions in thes even dirty old diesel transit. right now it's close to 50% of the greenhouse gas emissions in san francisco. it comes from the transportation sector. of those it's less than 2% that come from transit. so there's a, you know, nearly 50% that comes from cars and trucks and to the extent that those in cars can move onto buses no matter what their situation that's where we get the bang from our buck in reduces greenhouse emissions. this is kind of the icing on the cake. >> chairman brinkman: thank you. that's a very good point.
>> the bus lines tend to serve steeper grades. it's unlikely but possible there be good enoughario where the to replace coaches that serve lines that aren't as steep and not yet there. lect ec trolleys, we're speculating what the technology is going to be many years from now. the intent is to get to zero emission fleet. we're already there with half of our fleet. >> directors, any other questions? comments? >> these have a longer life-span, too, the electric buses in theory? >> anything we know about them is only in theory. they've not been in service long enough for us to know that. >> thank you. >> a that sort of brings up a second question. this is somewhat in theory and we're going to be staking bets
on a theory. that's fine. that's how progress happens. it's a significant bet. my question is, do we have enough ielligence that we're comfortable making this bet and then more really importantly from other side, wt is the plan with regard to who we're going to partner with to do this and make sure they have gnifsiant resources and expertise to make sure that somethingad doesn't happen with the technology and if it does, we're not left holding the bag with that technology. >> well, so, our intel is what has gotten us to the resolution as it's writtith the 2025 start date. >> right. >> part of our due diligence are some of the pilots we've talking about, the electric procurements that we're seeking to do and others will be doing thanks to the grant. there are a few that have already been done. they are all part of what we're ing to gather intelligence. in terms of the performance of the vehicles, we will structure
our contracts just ase d for our oer vehicle contracts to allocate the risk between the agency androvi pr. we don't intend to partner, per se, with electric bus manufacturers. >> i understand. >> but we will have our ready through this 30-foot coach procurement and subsequently we'll be inviting them to compe ands we have beeny closely with california transit association, which represents all the transit agencies in the state, to be sure that they understand what our requirements are to deliv reliable transit conservative is. i believe the bar will be increasing, and i think the performance, from what i understand of the electric buses, it has been increasing pretty significantly. >> forgive the ignorance, but these buses are produced by manage manufacturers? they can stand by their product? this is newhnolecy, but it's
not produced by sort of start-up or -- >> it's somewhere about -- but the industry is growing and maturing fairly rapidly. >> thank you. >> thankou dirrs, a other questions? motion to approve and a second? >> yes. >> if i may, before we vote, i rydy to thank eve been engh this work tha i and i think that probably the agency and there's been a lot of conversation about this over the past few, feels like, years, but i want to appreciate the leadership on the part director and ms. rush and the bright line. everybody that's had the opportunity, they have been pushing t eele. i don't think this would have come without their advocacy. i want to appreciate director hailey in his
t wh him and have been talking about making sure that we're pushing the envelope on this as best as possible. i think it's really clear that we all have an interest in getting us to 0 emissio as quickly as possible. i want to make it clear the statistic that director reiskin mentioned about 50% of the emotions and most of those are coming from cars. from the director's point, the 'reufprayi is coming from you're vehicles, if that the majority are coming from cars. i think that buses get a bad rap. the diesel and everything is a concern, but the biggest concern is keeping people out of cars or giving them real choices. i think that's the one thing we need to keep in mind as we go about this business. we need to make sure we're delivering reliable service, and i think w g about ts as best we can with an eye to beat l.a., of course, and of course to get to zero emissions
as quickly as possible. >> thank you very much for that reminder, director ramos. isortant to not only bring on board electric buses but do everything that we cano run as quickly and efficiently as they can and, of course, safely. >> to beat l.a. >> to beat l.a. >> i thought that's what you were going to say. >> i have a motion and a second. an opposed? this one passes as well. thank you for all yourk and all the people who came to comment. thank you very much, we appreciate your focus on this. some people on this board will be off by the time these deadlines roll around. we'll have to hold each other to our word on this one. i would like to actually, ms. boomer, go back to 10.4 and 10.5 and see if we can close those out. i think ms. jones that's information for us. >> thank you.
yes. good afternoon, director. sara jones, planning director at mta took a look at both items 10.4 and 10.5. 10.4 did p back to the atutory exemption determination for the budget. this is the appropriate determination to be pointing back to because it was an add-on tr an adjustment to the b bu c the same kinds of fee and -- not fair changes, but essentially the same kinds of rates, tolls, fairs, and charges under that exemption. so i think 10.4, the ceqa review picks it up. >> okay. thank you. >> on 10.5, i would like to make somether csultation with
the planning department. that's kind ofsualn item and we just want to confirm that that's the approia ceqa determination. >> thank you. we will take up 10.4in and we'll still hold on 10.5 and shouould yet it resolved, we can act on that one. ngankuch for that. 10.4, do i have a to approve? >> move to approve. >> a second. >> all in favor. any opposed? hearing none, 10.4 is approved. now item 12. >> good afternoon, directors. i lead the innovationm in the sustainable streets division. about -- last summer, we brought to you 10 guiding principles for emerging mobility services and technologies. since that time, we've been partnering with the san
francisco county transportation authority staff so do an assessment of different emerging mobility services are living up to those principles. we've reached a milestone where a draft report has been released and with this i would like to inean wh the transportation authority. >> welcome. >> good afternoon, i'm a senior transportation planner for the county of transportation authority and i'm excited to bring this report to all of you. i'm going to give awe brief overview of oureportnd kind of how it got here today. the first and ft that the nexus of this report is that both our board and yours have seen a lot of different services on our streets and some of them we didn't recognize. we want to make sure we're understanding what was out on r streets and evaluate whether
or not they are helping us meet our long-range and short range transportation goals. i'll go over briefly what we're mobng when we're talking about services achnogies. i'll remind eveone, about the 10 guiding principles that both this board and the transportation commission adopted last june. then go into the evaluation methodology that we both worked with the sf mta on. finally provide recommendations for our side and yours. thank you. >> when i say emerging -- am i talking lou enoh? i'm sorry. when i say emerging mobility services and technologies, this is covering bike sharing, car in sharing, and sidewalk robots. who knows what will come down in six months. >> who knows. >> last june, this board and ours adopted 10 principles for
emerging mobility and these are all based on existing policies, plans, strategies, so as an example, safety is based on vision 0 ourrans guiding principles is based our transit first policy and finally as a last exam, sustainability based on climate action strategies. these are an existing city policy and adopted plans, et cetera. but they are to declare guiding the different services and their companies towards what our goals are so that it's making clear to them what we stand or and what loong for them to do. we use these 10 principles to develop criteria and i'm going to walk through thisar because it's new. the first is we identified outcome metrics. these are the outcomes that are specifically listed in the guiding principles. in this case, you're seeing safety. safety principle is, of course, related to vision 0. so measurehem, weano see a reion in the collision rates. this is the outcome metric for
collisions. that said, we also, through a series of conversations with community stakeholders and the companies themselves, recognize that there are other ways to measure and understand these fferenervices and their offerings and so we added policy and design features that often relate to the outcome metric we're trying to measure and in some cases, there are other pieces of the puzzle. you'll see it listed here, whether or not the services avoid messaging related to distracted driving. we know that might have a correlation with a collision rate. hi level resulo stick mostly our main goal was to talk about the itry at large buthe report that you h a into all the results by guiding principle and by emerging mobility service type. i'm happy tnswer questions at the end about any one of those details if you'd like. so here are some results. f foremost is
that -- i think all of you know that. the companies that partnered with the sfmta provided keyexrie ermifu types. those permits are actually able to g larger service types, bike sharing or car sharing as an example, to be more in line with the city's reatciples. re. the challenge is that what we are f isindinghat sort of permit -- pilot to permit alignment pipeline is more informal and not a standardized process. what's happening -- this brings me to the second point -- is that the information that we're collecting is actually not or fdings oten with its report is that while aot ur permitting systems are collecting good data, it is not an apples to apples to app mo apples comparison. we want to understand how to look at all these across the board and have a bas baseline f
how they are helping or hurting the city's goals the first finding is that a lot of services are in fact ceove nig day and onnds. often, in areas that are less served by transit. we want to recognize that some at inlis andices y in factpl that we should look towards that when we think about, again, future pilots or permitting as an example. yhat i want to highlight. the first is that when we looked at a lot of the different services the way that the provide training for their operators, whether you, the service operator, o driver, let's say, it's not standard and safe for chariot, which is the private transit vehicle operar. no one testsr the operator after they've offered optional training. so one of the things that he dots here is that,erhaps, one of the biggest issues is that people who are using these services, d around, are notperator o
used to our streets. training mightp tha as an issu though, is that a lot of people are aware of th some of these services are stopping in bike lanes, stopping in crosswalks, stopping in transit lanesnd so this also ha impactafet and we port as well.l o t that bringse, in fo the -- i jumped arou. excuse me -- conflicts of public transit. some of these services have some documented evidence that they're pulling riders off our transit service. that's not a issue for us, of sturse, being a transit fir areas are conflicts with red carpet lanes. there's documented in here the study that the police department did over in soma where over the last couple of months, early spring, they were able to show a ret of citations were riding in ipt carpet l, et tera. all of those ha anrati opeal conflict that, you know, makes
being on a bus slower. that's a problem. last but not least, there are impacts on congestion. again, we have reports that there may be in fact me vehicles on our roadways because of some of these services. we just want to document if we're looking at reducing the numbers of vehicles. some of these services might impact increasing the numbers. we're going to look toward that in the future. we have several recommendations veltanhl pieces, but happy to dive into some of the details if any one of those are problematic discussions. first and foremost, we recommend that the city partner with these different companies before they come into our city ideally. this will give us an opportunity to understand how their services inrm permitting types. then with that, we're recommending providing a framework for future pilots and sort of saying, here are gaps. you help us fill them before you show u
thecalled measure. we want to encourage collecting additional travel behavior information. we want to understand better how ople mht be using some of these services to connect to transit and then moving forward. the third is regulating and recovering costs. this falls primarily on the sfmta. ou heres e existing permits you have on your boards and then also create a framework for future permits so that ideally, it's not one, but there's a larger umbwerella cande?what av svices we thou o. there will be some soon enough. fourth, we want to continue to bridge molt gaps for low income users and people with mobility needs. that's a big issue across the board not just in this city but in other areas as well. we also recommend prioritizing public transit because we're a transit first city, continuing to roll out red carpet lanes and provide additional signal timing as an example.
fifth, we recommend increasing enforcements at known hotspots f we know there's double sparking in areas of the -- parking in areas of the city, we can encourage better behavior by increasing enforcement. that said, we recognize that there are not enough people literally in city to handle that issue somimes and so we're also identifying ways to automate some future enforcement capability. last but notst, price, so there are two elements here to thismendatio which in moveowcoul not justing prici- congestion pricing. we haven't looke at how that will look, but we're opening that conversation. finally, moving forwards a comprensive strategy across the board in the city. i just want to end by thanking several people that worked v very closel w me at the sfmta. weave worked very, veryme onrojt
closely on all the worksho bringing the guiding principles forward. i just want to say thank you to these strongollaborative effort that we've brought together to make this happen. >> younkery much, mr. logan. this was quite a massive the o time it f read through this report, and still feel like i don't understand, obviously, completely. this was really huge. there's so much good information in there, and i do come away with it -- my sense of frustration is, perhaps, a bit reduced and i'm hopeful we're going to be able to wra our arms around it and work towards it. i think that some of the things that stuck out to me was the actual identifying how much of our traffic is tmzs. i think that number that lept out was 20% of the traffic is probably tncs. that to me is just appalling.
everything we're doing to make our city move more efficiently and we're getting stymied on every street and importanttrantr on this.you m going forward, is this going to continue to be a joint ta mta project as try and kind of work with this and figure out t to make thing w we canplem bittt >> i'll let her speak a little bit to that and then hand it off. there's an overlap here. there are recommendations. a lot ofhem were doped i eat part by staff at your ency, which they -- the other part, though, is that there is an emerging mobility strategy that's comingort o a cl of response to the findings in this report. i'll handt i off tiscu at.th >> the stregy is comext. >> yes.
my team had overlapped with this effort, looking to learn, you knowhat types of iues or potential solutions are we eing, and developing a st capture those. we've identified a number of potential actions stag process to, you know, understand what some those high prioritiesere or will be. some of those are likely to show hi in the action plan for thecon we'll talk about in august. you'll get aview of what we look to uertake in the next >> i'm sure we'll bring i s bouause there's a bigovement in cities or data to flow both ways for the emerging mobility companies to provide us with data, but for city agencies to also send data t the other way. so it's a two- strt. correct?
>> yeah. that's correct. we've engaged in preliminary discons with some companies about their willingness to share rtain information, you know. pery protected information or personally identifiable information i one of things that often trips us up. so figuring out how we can get the information to help us understand these services without, you know, revealing personal information is one of the biggest challenges, not just this city, but many cities are ng i j>>t wanted to add to t statement that as part of the outreach for the evaluation, we actually submitted to all the companies we were working with an industry survey to help us understand and several of the companies actually provided a lot of helpful information that colors how theirervis work. so i just want to sort of applaud the goo faith effort that several companies did. rector do h questions? >> inow you might have mentioned robots and drones, but heard recently that they
migh have helicopter-type picks to take people from f overall flying the. objects -- i think tha more of the future, sadly, than we're worried about the street space. i don't know how -- what kind of jurisdiction or how that will play for us to regulate, if it's in the airut not in the air. so i mean, that's something we need to be talking, i guess, to the airport about or -- i'm not really sure who woulde dealing with that space. ihink tt the future isn't on the ground. >> yeah. i think that's probably right. i think these principles would en applic, doinsponse might quie i think the faa has asserted jurisdiction down to a certain limit, you about i think it's -- but ink it's unclear and ite low. a lot of us may be preempted at the federal level from regulating.
eo and attitudes would b --toucowns would convens wrsioh otheundrs arohe state and we would want to engage the airport given their experience andwork th planning becpa the use of facility as youay recall, helicopepa been in theast p bit of a point in the city. so t gre point. t it'snrea t i maybe the next frontier afterthe latest wave of surface transportation options emerge. >> i think with the drones, i think more focus on the delivery of ps,roct not people, but i think we need to think more about that the and changing technology just related to the trucking industry and how goods and services get to people. i know it touches a little bit on that in this report. i think we're focused much more on the individual patterns, i t w need -- that really
will define a lot of the things that happened on our streets. >> so thank you for all this, and i'm glad we're thinking about it. brings me back to the point that w sort of focused in on in the scooter discussion we h tnk, to m one of the things that we cano as regulator and we can sort of build into these pilots as we go forward, is these companies are all technology and exploring technologo make a e.ofit, which is that's the test of their success in the market. but we don't see the same enthusiasm about using their technology to ensure compliance. and i guess where i come out is that's really going to be the solution to this. for if were going aic provider with a very sophisticated gps system that allows you to pick up your customers and know where your customers are, that sam system shouebl to keep you out
of bike lanes or report when you're in a bike lane,p you out oouble parking when you shouldn't be doublekingar the excuse that the gps doesn't work t well the midst of skyscrapers, i've got to say, i just don't buy it. i think if we, a a regulator, ook,uuysre t logy exper you figured out a way to serve your customers that's going to be a success. god bless you. at the same time, you have to figure out how your technology ur w rnd us that. we shouldn't be getting into the teeslo we're not going ts b good. we'red at we do. ey're good at what they do. but i think that has to be part of our paradigm for the regulation go forwa. here's what w gin to demand of you service provider, if you want a license. you're going to have to show us some technology that's goingo enforce these basic safety requirementshat are ctical. if you c't, one of your competitors is going to, and
competitor is going to get the licenses from us. and i think that really can be a paradigm for how wo forward. i will tell you, i think there are some companies that jt are morees than others. i will tell you en i drive around, i know who is double parking and blockinunes. it's not chariot vehicles or scooters. i don't seehat. i think they've built it their culture they're gog to comply with rules. it's the tncs. they are loaded, loaded with more computing power than the apollo mission had and yet, we n't bld in -- i realize there's preemption issues, we can't build in a reliable system that comes them from bloce parking and buses and drivers as well. i realize we don't have a specific propo before us today, but for me, it's technology that's driving all of this, and i don't think we have
to feel the responsibility as an agency to invent enforcement technology. i think we as an agency can require self-enforcing technology these companies have to it in befor t a that's a good point. thank you very much. eed ctors, any more questions o? goo t public comment still. thank you both very much for the work on this. it will be interesting see thiy s report that comes out. it's important workou'r y doing. thank you again, both of y >> thank you. >> we have two people who have turned iner cds. >> good aon, directors. for a chariot. we're very proud of chariot seeing ine emerging mobility report. while there's still more work to results ohe report show that chariot today isttin g
mobility providers andir nd st importantly, francisco isco a opposed toh the city o fa ud.ating city regulations. rt charoot is sharing the type of data that director heinicke is referring to. chariot is paying for the cost of running the program. irements and to address100 stopr public concerns. chariot will only design routes that complement public transit and not compete with it. in addition to wit mta, chariot invests in the mmoys heir workforce half the who live in theew. bayvi they pay for each driver to complete a commercial driver's licensing program. they pay for the c of t
hegr $16.50 an to situgh hour.we areudfur partnership withal t 665 ated ood w a benefits for t members, setting the bar for micro transit in the bay area. they reduce congestion by removing ten single occupancy vehicles per chariot on the road. we're committed to safety as he ca -- accessibility with a fleet of whir accessible vehicles we have and we have an in-app function that you can request a wheelchair accessible vehicle through the app. we're also providing s to areas of >> thank you. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, again, directors. i did spend much of the morning
looking ohi rort. i thi footep. i hope that some effective regulation comes out of it. but i wanted to specifically talk about the tncs and has been noted by a couple of directors, this -- the biggest part of the conge noblem in the city is undoubtedly the tncs. the city has thus far taken the position they don't have regulatory authority ove cerinly you have regulatory authority infa as it goes -- the general rules, the rules of application that apply citywide to all vehicles or even, i would say, to certain classes of vehicles such as the ones that are contained inport. so i would